Creative Media Advertising is it really
better?
An experiment determining the different effects on attitude and intention
when using Creative media advertisements (CMA) versus Traditional media
advertisements (TMA) with the use of a non-profit or profit brand and the
role of Perceived persuasive intent (PPI)
Rosalinda Meijer 10381392 Master’s Thesis
Graduate School of Communication
Master’s programme Communication Science Supervisor: mw. dr. M.H.C. Meijers
Summary
The amount of advertisements leads marketers to find newer ways to keep the attention from their consumers. Creative media advertisements are one of the newer ways to advertise. This experimental study tests whether this new way of advertising is more effective than the traditional way of advertising. This study determines whether perceived persuasive intent has a mediating role with advertisement attitude, brand attitude and purchase intention as outcome variables. It also tests the moderating effect different types of brands (profit and non-profit) in creative media advertising. An online experiment was conducted with 207 participants. The results showed surprisingly opposing results. The traditional way of advertising was seen to be more effective than the creative way. This study can be helpful when determining whether companies should use traditional media advertising or creative media advertising.
Introduction
A part of everyone’s daily live consists of being vigorously exposed to advertisements. This happens while watching TV, reading newspapers or magazines, walking outside, or visiting websites, and social media. People are bombarded with advertisements; an individual person can be exposed to more than 5000 advertisements everyday (Marshall, 2015). This affects both marketers and consumers. On one hand consumers are using different techniques to resist those messages, for example via advertisement avoidance or selective exposure (Fransen, Verlegh, Kirmani & Smit, 2015), while on the other hand marketers need to find new ways to stand out from the clutter attracting the attention of the right consumers (Pieters, Warlop & Wedel, 2002). Advertisers for both profit and non-profit organizations experience this struggle and see a decrease of attention from their target audience (Griffin & O’Cass, 2004).
This phenomenon has led to different ways of advertising than traditional advertising, such as viral marketing, guerrilla marketing, and creative media advertising (Dahlén, Friberg, & Nilsson, 2009). The movement from traditional to the newer types of advertising has led to an increase of interest in its effects (Dahlén, et al., 2009; Dahlén, 2005; Eelen & Seiler, 2015). The current study compares the effects of a creative media advertisement (CMA) to a
traditional media advertisement (TMA). CMA’s uses features of the brand or product and transforms them into a message using an unexpected medium associable with the brand or product (Dahlén, 2005). For instance, a brand that produces hot sauce uses a fire extinguisher as their medium to transport their message.
Literature on the effectiveness of creative media advertising is still limited. For
instance, there is no comparison made between profit and non-profit organizations and if their advertisements differ in effect when they use CMA’s instead of TMA’s. The advertisements of those different types of organizations can be evaluated differently by consumers, because
of their different focus and intentions. Especially in terms of perceived persuasive intent (PPI), which is the feeling that people experience when they are being persuaded and the awareness of that advertisers try influence their attitudes (Friestad & Wright, 1994; Friestad & Wright, 1999). The unexpectedness of CMA can lower the feeling of being persuaded and resistance (Dahlén, 2005).
This study aims to determine whether CMA’s differ in effect on advertisement
attitude, brand attitude and purchase intention compared to TMA’s. A difference is expected on advertisement attitudes, brand attitude and purchase intention, because of a higher
likelihood that people experience a lower PPI (Dahlén & Edenius, 2007) due to the unexpectedness of the medium choice (Hutter, 2015; Hutter & Hoffmann, 2014).
Furthermore, this study aims to determine whether the effects of CMA’s differ for profit (sales) and non-profit (public awareness) brands. PPI is expected to play a mediating role in this.
Research on this phenomenon is limited, but lately generates interest and is an
upcoming research field (Dahlén et al., 2009; Dahlén, 2005; Eelen & Seiler, 2015. Therefore, current study will be an addition to the existing literature, make the research gap smaller and help marketers to create more effective advertising. Also, this research will give a
contribution to society because both non-profit and profit advertising can have societal and economic benefits (Pollay & Mittal, 1993). From the above introduction, the following research question emerges: To what extend does the type of advertising (traditional vs creative media advertising) differ in effect on brand attitude, advertisement attitude and purchase intention, moderated by the type of brand (non-profit vs profit brand) and PPI as mediator?
Theoretical background
CMA versus TMA
The amount of exposure to advertising (clutter) makes it hard for consumers to process all the information and for marketers to reach their goals (Pieters et al., 2002). Consumers do not want to be exposed to the extensive amount advertisements, therefore their attention reduces (Speck & Elliott, 1997). Another explanation for the resistance and avoidance is the advertising schema that people develop to cope with all the advertising (Friestad & Wright, 1994). Consequently, people develop schemata to help them to acknowledge and interpret advertising, mediating their response automatically (Pillow, 1991). For example, while seeing an advertisement, people may feel that someone wants to persuade them and as reaction they take a certain action. This action takes place automatically by for instance zapping away or ignoring the message when the advertisement comes up. Also, factors such as message understanding, multitasking, and involvement play a role and can have detrimental effects on the message effectiveness (Eelen, Rauwers, Wottrich, Voorveld & van Noort, 2016).
Advertisement clutter, involvement, automatic schemata determine whether the consumers have enough resources and attention to be able to process the message, when insufficient this may limit the effectiveness of advertisements. Thus, to get more attention from consumers and to prevent activation of the schemata to avoid advertisements, it is needed to stand-out from the other advertisements by applying new or more creative
alternative strategies. For example, Smith and Yang (2004) found that creativity in advertising increases attention and motivates consumers to process the advertisement.
Creative media advertising has been defined as a form of unconventional, unexpected marketing communication (Dahlén, 2005). However, this part of the definition also applies to guerilla marketing, ambient advertising and street marketing. They all use elements of the environment that are unexpected and come in many different forms (Gambetti, 2010;
Gambetti & Schultz, 2015). CMA differs itself from these concepts with the second part of the definition which states that a CMA, employs a novel medium that has an associative overlap with the brand. Hence, the medium itself communicates the message (Dahlén, 2005).
When creativity is used in advertising it should be original and unique to attract attention and break through the clutter. Also, CMA’s should be appropriate in terms of being relevant to the message, category, and their target audience to improve brand attitude and purchase intention (Kilgour, Sasser & Koslow, 2013; Koslow, 2015). CMA’s fit the
requirements of appropriateness that Koslow (2015) described, the advertisement and in this case the medium should be relevant to the brand or product. This means that CMA’s use features of the brand or product and transform them into a message using an unexpected medium, to make it relevant. The used medium could be anything associated with the brand and it implicitly communicates the message of a brand (Dahlen, 2005). TMA’s don’t make this association with the medium, instead they use common media such as print, television radio and billboards.
A literature review showed that the unexpectedness of the advertisement and the use of implicitness between the medium and the brand make these advertisements more effective (Eelen et al., 2016). Research found that CMA’s are more effective than traditional media in terms of attitudinal and behavioral outcomes such as brand attitude and purchase intention (Dahlén, 2005; Hutter, 2015; Hutter & Hoffmann, 2014). Therefore, the following is expected:
H1 A CMA lead to a more positive brand attitude, advertisement attitude and a higher intention than a TMA.
The positive effects of CMA’s can be explained via the Associative Learning Theory (Anderson & Bower, 1974), which describes memory as a network with links. What people know and experience are mentally linked to each other. The used medium in CMA’s develop
a link between the medium, brand and already stored information; such as previous personal experiences with that medium or brand. This can result in an assimilation effect (positive links) or a contrast effect (negative links; Anderson & Bower, 1974). CMA’s are more
distinctive than a traditional medium and therefore it is more likely that the association will be linked to the mental network (Dahlen, 2005). This can result into a more positive evaluation because of the assimilation effect and into spontaneous reminders of the brand when these associations are activated, even when the brand is not present. For instance, thinking of hot sauce when someone sees a fire extinguisher. The CMA increases the possibility that a consumer thinks of a brand or product when being exposed to a stimulus that is associated or linked mentally. The objects and other associations will function as a prime that results in thinking of the brand or message. Another concept that has an influence on the positive effects is PPI. This will be discussed next.
PPI
For many years, traditional media has been the main channel of sending out messages. Consumers got used to this type of advertising and this has led to an awareness of persuasion among consumers. They develop schemata with as result a less effective message, avoidance and disinterest (Speck & Elliott, 1997). When people acknowledge the purpose of advertising (sales) it increases the likelihood of resisting an advertisement (Eagly, Wood, & Chaiken, 1978; Laran, Dalton, & Andrade, 2011; Petty & Cacioppo, 1979; Wood & Eagly, 1981) This is known as PPI, the awareness that consumers develop when being exposed to
advertisements, where advertisers try to influence their thoughts, behaviors and emotions (Friestad & Wright, 1999; Friestad & Wright, 1994).
CMA’s appear to be unexpected and therefore they are typically less perceived as an advertisement (Dahlén & Edenius, 2007). This results in a lower likelihood to activate the schemata. There have been contradictory findings of CMA’s and the PPI. Rauwers and Noort
(2015) conducted an online experiment, no differences in PPI for CMA’s were found compared to traditional. However, another study found that creative media advertising was less perceived as an advertisement and had a lower PPI (Dahlén & Edenius, 2007), thus a lower likelihood to activate schemata.
Contradictory results from studies (Rauwers & Noort, 2015; Dahlén & Edenius 2007) possibly arose from the misperception of the association of the link between the creative medium and the brand in the study of Rauwers and Noort (2015). Therefore, a CMA is still expected to be less perceived as an advertisement. Also, it is less common as TMA, therefore it is expected to result into a lower PPI and is less likely to activate schemata. Therefore, the following hypothesis is constructed:
H2 A CMA leads to a lower PPI than a TMA.
Brand attitude, Advertisement Attitude & Purchase Intention
Attitude and intention are common predictors of performing the desired behavior according to the theory of planned behavior (Azjen, 1991). This means that those predictors are valuable for the desired outcome. Intention is perceived as a direct predictor of behavior and determination, namely buying the advertised product (Conner & Armitage, 1998; Armitage & Conner, 2001). As mentioned before, research shows that CMA’s have positive effects (Hutter & Hoffman, 2014; Dahlén & Edenius, 2007; Dahlén, 2005, 2009; Hutter, 2015; Rosengren, Modig & Dahlén, 2014). Those effects can be mediated by PPI. According to the defining advertising goals for measured advertising results model (DAGMAR; Colley, 1961), a consumer develops a brand attitude after gaining knowledge about the product and brand. There are four phases, first going from a state of unawareness of the brand/product to brand awareness (first phase). This knowledge leads into an understanding of the
advertisement and they add this to their understanding this can have unfavorable effects on their evaluation of the brand, advertisement, on their purchase intention (third phase) and purchasing the product (fourth phase).
The consumers can use contesting strategies such as counter-arguing and source derogation, which leads to resisting the message (Fransen et al., 2015). A lower PPI decreases the likelihood of resisting the message and developing unfavorable attitudes and intentions (Dahlén & Edenius, 2007). The PPI is expected to be lower for CMA’s than TMA’s and less likely to activate the schemata. Dahlén & Edenius (2007) found that a CMA is perceived as more credible than a TMA, which leads to less resistance (Fransen et al., 2015). Because of the higher likelihood that a CMA results in a lower PPI and activation of schemata, it is expected that advertising attitude, brand attitude, and purchase intention are more favorable in comparison with a TMA. The following hypothesis is constructed:
H3 A CMA leads to a lower PPI than a TMA and this leads to more positive advertisement attitude, brand attitude and a higher purchase intention than TMA.
Creative media in profit & public awareness advertisements
As mentioned before, the comparison of the effects of CMA’s with a profit or non-profit organization has not been made in literature. Examples of non-profit product brands are Heineken, KitKat and Oreo. Examples of non-profit are KWF, WNF, Greenpeace. An example of a non-profit brand that used creative media advertising is WWF. They developed an advertisement by using a paper towel dispenser as medium of the message (appendix A, image 1). On the paper towel dispenser was a transparent image of a continent with green paper towels behind it. The used continent was South America where deforestation is a
you can think of the ‘KitKat’ bench which symbolizes their slogan ‘Have a break have a KitKat (appendix A, image 2)
Although, multiple studies found positive effects of CMA’s (Hutter & Hoffman, 2014; Dahlén & Edenius, 2007; Dahlén, 2005, 2009; Hutter, 2015; Rosengren et al., 2014) questions arose whether positive effects are also present when the findings are extended to a non-profit environment and to what extend the CMA differs in effect on intentions and attitudes between non-profit organization and a profit organization. Non-profit marketing differs from
commercial marketing in that the behavioral action is more likely to benefit other people rather than the individual (Schiffman, Kanuk & Wisenblit, 2010), but it also aims to increase public awareness addressing the cause or the communicated problem (Kotler, Roberto & Lee, 2002), instead of brand awareness or sales.
PPI, profit & non-profit
The different motives for advertising, having profit or non-profit goals, can influence consumers’ skepticism towards an advertisement. The consumer doubts the truthfulness of the message or the marketers’ motives for the messages (Friestad & Wright, 1994; Mohr, Eroglu, & Ellen, 1998; Webb & Mohr, 1998). Activation of persuasion knowledge plays a role in this, for example, when people see an advertisement of a non-profit organization they can evaluate it as more truthful than an advertisement from a profit organization. This is because, non-profit organizations are expected to behave in a socially responsible manner (Andreasen, 1994; Glenane-Antoniadis, Whitwell, Bell & Menguc, 2003; Shanahan & Hopkins, 2007). As a non-profit organization, the aim can be to increase awareness, collect donations, or sell products using the funds for a cause. In contrast, the goal of a profit organization is to generate sales and make profit. Obermiller, Spangebers and Maclacklan (2005) found that when consumers are skeptical they become more resistant against the advertisement. This lowers the effect of the advertisement on purchase intention. Consequently, the PPI of profit
organization advertisements is expected to be higher than for non-profit. The expected
difference can be explained by the following example; when people see an advertisement of a profit organization and are aware of the persuasion, this can influence their attitude
negatively. They can feel resistant because the organizations goal is having more sales. When this occurs for a public awareness campaign the effect can be different because the consumer perceives a lower or different persuasive intent because of the goal of helping others. This would result in a more positive attitude towards the public awareness campaign. This can’t be empirically supported yet however it can be supported theoretically (Friestad & Wright, 1994; Mohr et al., 1998; Webb and Mohr, 1998).
This is based on the persuasion knowledge model (PKM) that Friestad and Wright (1994) developed, consumers have three types of knowledge that can be activated when they are exposed to an advertisement. There is agent-knowledge; which is about the source, topic knowledge; which is about the subject or product that is promoted and there is persuasion knowledge; which is knowledge about the techniques marketers use to persuade you. When one of more of these three types of knowledge is activated, this can lead to coping behavior or resistance towards the message. For instance, resistance can happen when the consumer notices it is all about making more profit (agent knowledge is activated) when seeing an advertisement of a profit organization. While with a non-profit advertisement this is less likely to happen because it stimulates helping others instead of themselves as a company, which leads to a more likable evaluation of the source. Based on the PKM and previous mentioned research the expected PPI would be lower for a non-profit CMA than for a profit TMA (Friestad & Wright, 1994; Dahlén & Edenius, 2007). The following hypothesis is constructed:
H4 CMA with a non-profit organization lead to a lower PPI than advertisements with a profit organization and TMA.
Attitude and purchase intention with profit and non-profit ads
Differences in effects on attitudes and intentions are expected and are influenced by PPI, source credibility (Dahlén & Edenius, 2007). Hereby arises the question whether the source of the advertisement influences the evaluations. It is more likely that non-profit advertisements have a higher source credibility and a lower PPI (Friestad & Wright, 1994; Dahlén & Edenius, 2007). Therefore, it is expected that the PPI influences the effect of a CMA for non-profit organizations on the attitudes and intentions of consumers. The following hypothesis is constructed:
H5 A CMA with a non-profit organization leads to a lower PPI and this leads to a more positive advertisement attitude, brand attitude, and a higher purchase intention than an advertisement with a profit organization and a TMA.
Figure 1. Conceptual model and the related variables
H2
H3 H5
H4
Method
Design
To answer the main research question, hypotheses were developed and tested with the use of an online experiment. Qualtrics, an online tool to create and distribute surveys was used to carry out the experiment. An experiment gives the possibility to manipulate the conditions and has as goal to determine the causal relationship (Boeije, Hart & Hox, 2009), between the types of advertising; creative media or traditional, brand, profit or non-profit (independent variables) or brand attitude, advertisement attitude, purchase intention (dependent variables) with PPI as mediator. Participants were randomly assigned to the conditions and exposed to one of the four advertisements, to prevent other explanations. The design of this study is a 2 (advertisement type: traditional x creative media advertising) x 2 (brand type: profit x non-profit) between subject’s factorial design.
Sample
Participants were selected via convenience sampling. The participants were 18 years and older and recruited via Social Media, Facebook-groups, email, and forums. They were asked to fill out the survey online via a link. Two-hundred-seventy people participated in this research. However, participants who did not fully fill out the survey were removed (61). Also, people with a low English proficiency were excluded to make sure that they understood the asked questions (2). After removal, there was a total of 207 (61.4% female) participants that volunteered to fill out the survey. Participants’ age ranged from 18 to 77 and the average age was 26.83 (SD = 11.25). All participants had to give informed consent, before participation in the research. Most participants completed College 27.1% followed by Bachelor 25.7%, High school 18.8% and Master degree 17.9%.
Stimulus material
To manipulate the independent variable advertisement type (creative/traditional) two sunscreen advertisements were created. The product was the same in every condition to maintain consistency. One of the advertisements was a CMA, while the other advertisement a TMA. CMA’s use a medium that could be associated with the brand or product. This medium brings over the message implicitly. In this study, as creative medium people covered in sticky pink post-it notes were used. They were sitting in a park. The aim of the sticky post-it notes, was to remind people that, without sunscreen you get flakes of a sunburned skin, with
permanent damage. This element emphasizes the connection with sunscreen. The slogan used in the campaign was ‘Our skin never forgets’. This slogan was on the backside of the post its. The participants were instructed to imagine seeing the picture in a real-life situation; while walking or sitting in the park.
The second advertisement was a TMA; the medium that was used was print, which does not show an association with the brand or product. For the TMA, a family that was sitting in the park was selected. When the participants were exposed to the traditional advertisement they had to imagine that they saw the advertisement in a magazine.
To manipulate the independent variable brand type (profit/non-profit brand) a profit organization (Vichy) was added to one CMA and one TMA. As non-profit organization, the brand Cancer Council was selected and was added to one CMA and one TMA. A short description of the brand and its goals was added in the advertisements to ensure that the participants understood the origin of the brand (non-profit or profit). In total, there were four conditions created (figure 2). The reasoning that sunscreen is used as product in this study is because the product is neutral. The brands that were chosen for this study are not known to be popular sunscreen brands, which decreases the likelihood of people having a strong opinion about it.
Figure 2. Stimulus material (top CMA, profit and non-profit, bottem TMA non-profit and
profit)
Pre-test
A qualitative pre-test was conducted among 8 participants to ensure that the stimulus material of the creative media advertising brings over the implicit message. The image of the people covered in sticky pink post-it notes was shown to the participants, to test this. Two questions were asked. The first question was. “Which words come up in your mind when you see this advertisement?” The second question was: “Do you think there is a link between the used medium and the promoted brand or product?” The average age was 33.25 (SD = 15.65) and 75% of the participants were female. The pre-test showed that the CMA could be
sun and 87,5% saw a link between the medium and the brand/product. One saw the post-notes as protection against the sun while another saw it as peeling skin from sunburn, and yet another saw it as prevention and reminders not to forget to put on sunscreen. Therefore, the pre-test showed that the participants perceived the advertisement in the right way and can be used for further analysis as stimulus material.
Procedure
The participants were invited to participate in this research. When the participants clicked on the link they were directed to the survey in Qualtrics. Where they had to give informed consent to proceed with the survey, after giving their consent they were randomly assigned to one of the four advertisements. Participants could view the advertisement as long as they wanted, but there was a forced minimum exposure of 10 seconds, this was to ensure that they saw the basic elements of the advertisement before proceeding with the survey. Finally, they were asked to fill out the survey with questions regarding to advertisement attitude, brand attitude, purchase intention and PPI. At the end of the survey there were questions that represented the manipulation check and demographics. The participants were given the option to enter comments or ask questions. The participants were not able to go back throughout the survey. The sample was equally distributed between conditions (n Creative profit = 54; n Creative profit = 51; n Traditional profit = 51; n Traditional non-profit = 51).
Measures
Manipulation Check. Two manipulation checks were added. The first was to ensure that the participants perceived the CMA as creative, unexpected, and unusual and the TMA as usual and less creative. This was measured via the statement: The advertisement that I just
saw was: uncreative/creative, usual/ unusual, expected/unexpected, surprising/unsurprising would, on a seven-point semantic differential scale consisting out of the four items. A
principal component analysis with a rotated varimax showed that these four items form a one-dimensional scale, only one component is given and has an eigenvalue larger than 1 (EV =
3.06). It explains 76.46% (R 2
= .76) of the variance in the four items. The scale is proven to be reliable with the reliability analysis, Cronbach’s alpha .90 (M = 3.27, SD = 1.14). The higher the participants’ score on this scale the more unusual the advertisement is perceived.
The second manipulation check was to determine whether the participant saw the brand in the advertisement correctly, meaning they saw the non-profit brand as non-profit and the profit as profit. The added question to test this was: “The brand in the advertisement that you just saw was?” With 0 = profit, 1 = non-profit. Both questions were measured at the end of experiment.
Dependent variable: Advertisement attitude. The variable advertisement attitude was
the participants’ evaluation of the advertisement that was measured after the stimulus. This was measured using a seven-point semantic differential scale consisting of five items, my overall impression of this advertisement is: “bad/good”, “dislike/like”,
“unpleasant/pleasant”, “unfavourable/favourable” and “negative/positive” (Dahlén, 2005; Dahlén et al., 2009; Baack & Till, 2008). A principal component analysis showed that these 5 items formed a one-dimensional scale, only one component is given and has an eigenvalue
larger than 1 (EV = 4.12). It explains 82.31% (R 2
= .82) of the variance in the five items. The scale is proven to be reliable with the reliability analysis, Cronbach’s alpha .95 (M = 5.05, SD = 1.36).
Dependent variable: Brand attitude. The variable brand attitude was the participants’ evaluation of the brand that was measured after the stimulus. This was measured via six items using a seven-point semantic scale: My overall impression of this brand is; “bad/good”,
“untrustworthy/trustworthy”, “unpleasant/pleasant”, “unfavourable/favourable”,
“negative/positive”, and “bad quality/good quality”. Based on the used scale of Baack and Till (2008). A principal component analysis showed that these 4 items form a
one-dimensional scale, only one component is given and has an eigenvalue larger than 1 (EV =
4.92). It explains 82.10% (R 2
= .82) of the variance in the six items. The scale is proven to be reliable with the reliability analysis, Cronbach’s alpha .96 (M = 5.10, SD = 1.27).
Dependent variable: Purchase intention. The variable purchase intention was the participants’ determination to buy the product promoted in the advertisement, this was measured after the stimulus. This was measured via the question: If given the opportunity to purchase this brand, the likelihood of me doing so would be: “unlikely/likely”,
“improbable/probable”, “definitely would not/definitely” would, based on a bipolar adjective scale measured from 1 (low) to 7 (high). This measure is based out of the studies from Baack & Till, 2008 and Dahlén, 2005. A principal component analysis showed that these three items form a one-dimensional scale, only one component is given and has an eigenvalue larger than
1 (EV = 2.73). It explains 91.03 (R 2
= .91) of the variance in the four items. The scale is proven to be reliable with the reliability analysis, Cronbach’s alpha .95 (M = 4.44, SD = 1.62).
Mediator: PPI. The variable, PPI indicates participants’ awareness that advertisers try to influence their thoughts, behaviors and emotions. This was measured via the question, “To what extent do you agree to the three statements”: ‘The goal of the advertisement is to sell more sunscreen’, ‘To sell me sunscreen’, ‘The advertisement has a profit goal’. All measured on a seven-point Likert scale from 1 (strongly agree) to 7 (strongly disagree), based on the scale of Dahlen and Edenius (2007). A higher score indicates a lower level of PPI and a lower score indicates a higher level of PPI. The lower the participants score on this scale the more they perceived being persuaded. A principal component analysis showed that these four items form a one-dimensional scale, only one component is given and has an eigenvalue larger than
1 (EV = 2.07). It explains 69.01% (R 2
= .69) of the variance in the three items. The scale is proven to be reliable with the reliability analysis, Cronbach’s alpha .77 (M = 2.70, SD = 1.14).
Control Variables: As controlling measures basic demographics, such as participants’ age, gender, and level of education were measured.
Results
Randomization check
To test whether the participants in the 4 experimental conditions differed from each other on gender, age, and level of education randomization checks were performed. First the variable ‘conditions’ were constructed for this purpose as Chi square can only compare two categorical variables and consisted of four levels: creative media profit, creative media non-profit, traditional media profit and traditional media non-profit. The Chi-square test showed that there isn’t a significant gender difference in the four conditions χ2
(6) = 3.40, p = .762. Also, it showed that the education level among participants is equally distributed across the conditions χ2
(18) = 15.25, p = .645. A 2x2 (Advertisements type; creative, traditional, Brand type; non-profit, profit)) analysis of variance showed that age is also equally distributed across the 4 conditions there was no interaction effect of conditions on age F (1, 202) = 0.29, p = .594, η2 = .00). This means that no control variables had to be considered as covariate.
Manipulation check
To test whether the CMA was perceived as more creative a manipulation check was conducted. A 2x2 analysis of variance showed that the manipulation was successful F (1, 203) = 105.10, p < .001, η2 = .34. The participants who saw the CMA scored significantly higher on the creativity scale than the participants who saw the TMA (table 1). The manipulation was successful.
In addition, A chi-square test was conducted to test whether the differences between brand types were successful. The chi-square test showed that there were significant differences between the conditions and whether the brand was profit or non-profit χ 2 (3) = 33.4, p <.001. The participants perceived the non-profit brand more often as non-profit and the profit brand in the advertisement as profit (table 2). With 0 as profit and 1 as non-profit. The manipulation was successful.
Hypothesis testing
Type of advertisement on brand attitude, advertisement attitude, and purchase intention To test whether a CMA lead to a more positive brand, advertisement attitude and higher purchase intention than a TMA (H1) a 2x2 MANOVA was conducted. With advertisement type (traditional versus creative), brand type (profit versus non-profit) as independent and brand attitude, advertisement attitude and purchase intention as dependent variables. Wilks’ Table 1. Manipulation check: Type of media on perceived creativity
Advertisement type Brand type Mean SD Creative
media non-profit
4.00 0.13 profit 3.83 0.13 Traditional
media non-profit
2.78 0.13 profit 2.42 0.13
Table 2. Manipulation check: Type of brand Brand type Ad type Mean SD
Non-profit Traditional 0.53 0.50 Creative 0.45 0.50 Profit Traditional 0.10 0.36 Creative 0.15 0.30
lambda = .93, F (3, 200) = 4.67, p = .004, η2 = .07 shows a significant weak direct effect of the advertisement type on advertisement attitude, brand attitude and purchase intention. Individual analyses also show that advertisement attitude F (1, 202) = 10.09, p = .002, η2 = .05, brand attitude F (1, 204) = 13.08, p < .001, η2 = .06, and purchase intention F (1, 204) = 4.32, p = .040, η2 = .02 are significant, but the effect is weak. There are significant differences between the effect of CMA and TMA. However, the opposite effect than expected occurred (table 3), the CMA led into less favorable attitudes and intention than the TMA. Hypothesis 1 is rejected.
Type of advertisement on PPI
To test whether a CMA lead to a lower PPI than TMA (H2) A 2x2 (advertisement type; traditional, creative x brand type; profit, non-profit) analysis of variance was conducted. The analysis shows that there isn’t a significant direct effect of type of advertisement on PPI F (1, 203) = 0.88, p = .350, η2 < .001. In the creative media condition participants (M = 2.75, SD = 0.11) had a similar PPI as those in the traditional media condition (M = 2.61, SD = 0.11). Hypothesis 2 is rejected.
Mediating effect of PPI
Table 3. Mean scores and SD of Advertisement type on dependent variables. Dependent Ad type Mean SD
Advertisement Attitude Creative media 4.76 0.13 Traditional media 5.35 0.13 Brand Attitude Purchase intention Creative media 4.79 0.12 Traditional media 5.41 0.12 Creative media 4.20 0.16 Traditional media 4.67 0.16
To test whether PPI functions as a mediator between advertisement type and advertisement, brand attitude and purchase intention (H3) a regression analysis was
conducted. To determine if there is a mediation three steps need to be taken (Baron & Kenny 1986). There needs be a relationship between type of advertisement (traditional/creative) and PPI. Followed by testing whether PPI influences the dependent variables: brand attitude, advertisement attitude and purchase intention. The third step is to determine whether advertisement type influences the dependent variables. Regression analysis shows that no significant effect of advertisement type on PPI F (1, 205) = 0.76, p = .383 (Step 1). Therefore, a mediation is unlikely. The following two steps are conducted individually for each
dependent variable. Hypothesis 3, that stated that the effect of type of advertising on the brand attitude, advertisement attitude and purchase intention is strengthened by PPI was tested with the use of a multiple regression analysis.
Advertisement attitude. Further regression analysis shows that there are no significant effects of PPI on advertisement attitude F (1, 204) = 0.48, p = .490 (Step 2) There are
significant effects found of advertisement type on advertisement attitude F (1, 204) = 10.32, p
= .002 (Step 3). The type of advertisement predicts for 5% (R 2
= .05) the variance in
Advertisement attitude, b* = -0.22, t = -3.21, p = .002, 95% CI [0.23, 0.96], significant but a weak prediction. The participants who saw the CMA have a less positive advertisement attitude on a scale from 1 to 7 (Figure 3). There was also a significant result found via the multiple regression determining the mediating effect of PPI on advertisement attitude (H3), F
(2, 203) = 5.28, p = .006. Together they explain 5% of the variance (R 2
= .05) on
advertisement attitude, advertisement type, b* = -0.22, t = -3.17 p = .002, 95% CI [0.22, 0.96], and PPI, b* = - 0.03, t = -0.35, p = .600, 95% CI [-0.21,0.12].
Brand Attitude. There is no significant effect of PPI on brand attitude F (1, 205) = 0.31, p = .580. (step 2). However, there are significant effects found of advertisement type on brand attitude, F (1, 205) = 12.70, p < .001. The type of advertisement significantly predicts
for 6% (R 2
= .06) the variance in brand attitude, b* = -0.24, t = -3.57, p < .001, 95% CI [0.27, 0.95], also a weak prediction. The people who saw the CMA have a less positive brand attitude on a scale from 1 to 7 (figure 4). To test the mediation (H3), multiple regression analysis shows that PPI and the type of advertising have a significant effect on brand attitude
F (2, 204) = 6.39, p = .002. Together they explain 6% of the variance (R 2
= .06) on brand attitude, advertisement type, b* = -0.24, t = -3.53, p = .001, 95% CI [0.27, 0.95], and PPI, b* = - 0.24, t = -0.35, p = .724, 95% CI [-0.18,0.12].
Figure 3. Standardized regression coefficients for the relationship between Advertisement type and Advertisement attitude, mediated by PPI.
Notes The standardized regression coefficient between Advertisement type and Advertisement attitude, controlling
for PPI, is in parentheses. *p < 0.05.
-.60 *
-.09 .14
Purchase intention There is no significant effect of PPI on purchase intention F (1, 205) = 0.22, p = .883. (step 2) There is a significant effect of advertisement type on purchase intention F (1, 205) = 4.00, p = .047. The type of advertisement significantly predicts for 2%
(R 2
= .02) the variance in purchase intention, b* = -0.14, t = -2.00, p = .046, 95% CI [0.01, 0.89], weak effect. The people who saw the CMA have a less of a purchase intention on a scale from 1 to 7 (figure 5).
Figure 4. Standardized regression coefficients for the relationship between Advertisement type
and Brand attitude, mediated by PPI.
Notes. The standardized regression coefficient between Advertisement type and Brand attitude, controlling for PPI, is
in parentheses. *p < 0.05.
-.61 *
-.09 .14
[-.61]
Figure 5. Standardized regression coefficients for the relationship between Advertisement type and Purchase intention, mediated by PPI.
Notes. The standardized regression coefficient between Advertisement type and Purchase intention, controlling for PPI, is in parentheses. *p < 0.05.
-.45 *
-.09 .14
Multiple regression to test the mediation (H3) showed that PPI and the type of advertising have no significant effects on purchase intention F (1, 204) = 1.99, p = .140.
Although there were significant results in the multiple regression analysis, the relation between advertisement type and brand attitude, advertisement attitude stay the same when controlling for PPI, this means that the PPI does not function as a mediator. Hypothesis 3 is rejected. The advertisement type does not influence attitude or intention through PPI.
Brand type in the CMA on PPI
To test the third hypothesis, a 2x2 (advertisement type; traditional, creative x brand type; profit, non-profit) analysis of variance was conducted to test whether CMA with a non-profit organization lead to a lower PPI than CMA with a profit organization or traditional
media(H4). Hereby the advertisement type (creative versus traditional and the brand (profit versus non-profit) are the independent variables and PPI is the dependent variable. The analysis shows that there is a significant direct but weak effect of brand type on PPI F (1, 203) = 6.44, p = .012, η2 = 0.03. People who saw the non-profit advertisement perceived a lower persuasive intent than the people who saw the profit advertisement (table 4). However, the analysis showed that there isn’t an interaction effect of brand type on the relation of advertisement type on PPI, F (1, 203) = 1.24, p = .266, η2 = 0.01. Therefore hypothesis 4 is rejected.
Table 4. Brand type on PPI. Brand type Mean SD Non-profit 2.88 1.20 Profit 2.48 1.04
Moderating Effect of brand type with PPI as mediator
CMA with a non-profit brand were expected to lead to a lower PPI and this leads to a higher advertisement attitude, brand attitude and purchase intention than CMA (H5). A moderated mediation effect was expected. Process model 7 was used to do the analyses.
Advertisement attitude: Process indicated that there is no interaction effect of brand type on the relation of advertisement type on PPI a = 0.34, t = 1.07, p = .286. Only, a direct effect of advertisement type in advertisement attitude was found c’ = -0.59, t = -3.17, p = .002. It also indicated that PPI does not mediate advertisement type, creative (95% CI= -.1136 to .0298) and traditional (95% CI= -.0290 to .0617), on advertisement attitude and this effect does not differ among non-profit and profit brand types, moderated mediation, boot SE = .04, point estimate. -0145; 95% CI = -.1472 to .0323.
Brand attitude: Process indicated that there is no interaction effect of brand type on the relation of advertisement type on PPI a = 0.35, t = 1.11, p = .266. Only a direct effect of advertisement type in brand attitude was found c’ = -0.61, t = -3.53, p < .001. It also indicated that PPI does not mediate advertisement type, creative (95% CI= -.1160 to .0409) and
traditional (95% CI= -.0306 to .0534), on brand attitude and this effect does not differ among non-profit and profit brand types, moderated mediation, boot SE = .04, point estimate -.0093; 95% CI = -.1338 to .0452.
Purchase intention: Process indicated that there is no interaction effect of brand type on the relation of advertisement type on PPI a = 0.35, t = 1.11, p = .266. Only a direct effect of advertisement type in purchase intention was found c’ = -0.45, t = -1.99, p = .048. It also indicated that PPI does not mediate advertisement type, creative (95% CI= -.0992 to .0698) and traditional (95% CI= -.0402 to .0457), on intention and this effect does not differ among non-profit and profit brand types, moderated mediation, boot SE = 0.5, point estimate. -0009;
95% CI = -.1062 to .0919,
In sum the results showed that there is no case of a moderated mediation. Therefore hypothesis 5 is rejected.
Discussion
Conclusion
This study used an experiment to determine the effects of a CMA compared to a TMA on advertisement attitude, brand attitude and purchase intention, with the moderating role of the brand type used in the advertisement, which was either a profit or non-profit organization and the mediating role of PPI. The research question: To what extend does the type of
advertising (traditional vs creative media advertising) differ in effect on brand attitude, advertisement attitude and intention, moderated by the brand type (non-profit vs profit) and PPI as mediator? can be answered with the help of the five hypotheses that were discussed in the results. The findings showed that the TMA lead to a more positive brand attitude,
advertisement attitude and higher purchase intention, which is opposing of what was expected. Also, the CMA did not lead to a lower PPI than TMA. PPI did not function as a mediator and the type of brand (profit-non-profit) did not have a moderating role.
Discussion
The results of current study showed the opposite of what was found in literature about the effects of CMA compared to traditional. Multiple studies found that CMA’s compared to TMA’s resulted in more positive effects than traditional media advertising (Dahlén, 2005; Hutter, 2015; Hutter & Hoffman 2014; Eelen et al., 2016). The opposing effects can be
explained by the clarity of used medium, when people do not understand the link this can lead to a more negative attitude and intention. Eelen & Seiler (2015), noted positive effects when people were able to solve the puzzle and understand the metaphor. The pre-test showed that
there were different possible interpretations of the CMA, however they were similar to the purpose of the advertisement, which means that they understood the message. A different interpretation of the CMA might also have occurred in the main research, which gives the possibility that people might not have linked it in the correct way, and did not understand the used medium. This means that the positive effects of CMA that were found in other studies (Dahlén, 2005; Hutter, 2015; Hutter & Hoffmann, 2014) could have been suppressed in this study by having the wrong association or no recognition of an association.
Another explanation of the opposing effects is that when there are too many elements used in an advertisement it can make it difficult to process the message. This is because people are trying to understand all the elements and cannot focus on everything or have the cognitive ability to process it. The limited capacity model (LC4MP) can explain this. It states that a person only can hold a part of all the information they retrieve. There is a limited set of resources to process all the information (Lang, 2000). The CMA might have needed more resources to process it than the TMA. This means that when the link of your creative medium with the brand or product can be interpreted in different ways it might be better to stay with a traditional medium. The implicitness of the medium can be too hard to interpret. In addition, Eelen and Seiler (2015), mentioned that the cognitive resources could have been absorbed while seeking for the link, this hinders processing the other elements of the message. The number of elements could have misled the participants to not focus on the used brands in the advertisement. Thus, this can explain why there was no moderating effect of the brand type (profit/non-profit) and possibly lead to misunderstanding of the advertisement and result in limited resources to process. Furthermore, the product of the advertisement and the slogan were about protecting your skin. This can be related to negative experiences of sunburn or thinking about cancer. This can lead to a negative attitude about the subject and this can be transferred to the evaluation of the advertisement, the brand and on their purchase intention.
Several studies found that the environment or subject matter while seeing an advertisement, it can spill over to the advertisement when it elicits negative responses (Aylesworth &
MacKenzie, 1998; Goldberg & Gorn, 1987; Murry, Lastovicka, & Singh, 1992). This means that when the advertised product can be related to a negative experience or subject creative media advertising might not be the better option to advertise.
PPI did not have a mediating role. An explanation for this is that there was a description of the brand in the advertisement and that the product also was included in the advertisement. This can remind the participant of agent and topic knowledge (PKM) and activate schemata and therefore result in a similar PPI as the TMA (Friestad & Wright, 1994). It is more likely that the PPI is lower when people see a CMA in real life and not on a picture.
Limitations
There are several implications that might have influenced the results of this study. Starting with that the participants could give feedback and comments at the end of the survey. Comments of the participants showed that some had difficulty seeing the advertisements properly when they filled out the survey on their phone. They were not able to zoom in and this might have influenced their responses to the questions. Further research should take this into account. The second implication; the use of images of advertisements could have
influenced the results and lowered the intern validity. The participants were asked to imagine that they saw the advertisements in real-life, however seeing an advertisement in real-life may have triggered different reactions. This makes it harder to generalize the results to reality, a field experiment would prevent this.
Another factor that will create a more realistic environment is the media clutter. People are not simple exposed to one advertisement during the day, they are exposed to multiple advertisements, and this should be considered in future research. This would lead to
more realistic results. When the participants are exposed to one advertisement they are more likely to have more focus and resources to process the advertisement than when they are exposed to multiple. This can have an influence on the results. Thirdly, it is hard to generalize the results to the general population, the participants were retrieved via a convenience sample within own network and most participants were friends, relatives and acquaintances.
Consequently, many participants were college students and for this reason not every layer of the population was selected for this research. This lowers the external validity. Future research should choose a different technique to select participants to increase generalizability of the sample.
Fourthly, intention and attitude were not measured before viewing the stimulus, this makes it difficult to determine whether there was a change in attitude or intention. In this study, this was consciously chosen to prevent effects of the pre-measurement on the outcome variables. It is more likely to prevent those effects with longitudinal research. Even though opposing effects were found for CMA, future research should have a long-term study on the effects of CMA to prevent systematic effects and determine the changes in attitude and intention and should be carried out in a realistic environment.
There is more research needed with the focus on the type of organization. The current research lacks in giving answers to whether a non-profit organization could profit from the newer types of advertising. An explanation for this is that not all of the participants saw the non-profit advertisement as non-profit, therefore in future research this needs to be clarified. Factors such as type of product and the difficulty of interpreting the creative medium should also be considered when conducting further research. Despite the limitations, this research project adds to the current literature and shows that CMA’s are not always more effective than the TMA’s.
References
Aylesworth, A. B., & Mackenzie, S. B. (1998). Context is key: The efect of program-induced mood on thoughts about the Ad. Journal of Advertising,27(2), 17-31.
doi:10.1080/00913367.1998.10673550
Andreasen, A. R. (1994). Social marketing: Its definition and domain, Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, 12 (1), 108–114.
Armitage, C. J., & Conner, M. (2001). Efficacy of the theory of planned behaviour: A meta- analytic review. British Journal of Social Psychology, 40(4), 471-499.
Azjen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behaviour. Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179-211.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T Anderson, J. R., & Bower, G. H. (1974). Human Associative Memory. Washington:
Hemisphere.
Baack, D. W., Wilson, R. T., & Till, B. D. (2008). Creativity and memory effects recall, recognition, and an exploration of nontraditional media. Journal of Advertising, 37(4), 85-94.
Boeije, H., Hart, H. T., & Hox, J. (2009). Onderzoeksmethoden. Den Haag: Boom Onderwijs.
Colley, R. H. (1961). Defining Advertising Goals for Measured Advertising Results. New York: Association of National Advertisers.
Conner, M., & Armitage, C. A. (1998). Extending the theory of planned behaviour: A review and avenues for further research. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 28(15), 1429- 1464. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1998.tb01685.x
Dahlén, M. (2005). The medium as a contextual cue: Effects of creative media
Dahlén, M., & Edenius, M. (2007). When is advertising advertising? Comparing responses to non-traditional and traditional advertising media. Journal of Current Issues &
Research in Advertising,29(1), 33-42. doi:10.1080/10641734.2007.10505206 Dahlén, M., Friberg, L., & Nilsson, E. (2009). Long live creative media choice. Journal of
Advertising,38(2), 121-129. doi:10.2753/joa0091-3367380208
Eagly, A. H., Wood, W., & Chaiken, S. (1978). Causal inferences about communicators and their effect on opinion change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,36(4), 424-435. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.36.4.424
Eelen, J., & Seiler, R. (2015). Creative media use increases online sharing of your ad (but seems less effective for your brand). Advances in Advertising Research (6), 291-308. doi:10.1007/978-3-658-10558-7_23
Eelen, J., Rauwers, F., Wottrich, V. M., Voorveld, H. A., & Noort, G. V. (2016). Consumer responses to creative media advertising: A literature review. Advertising in New Formats and Media, 19-46. doi:10.1108/978-1-78560-313-620151001
Elliott, M. T. and P. S. Speck (1998), “Consumer perceptions of advertising clutter and its impact across various media, Journal of Advertising Research, 38(1), 29-41.
Fransen, M. L., Verlegh, P. W., Kirmani, A., & Smit, E. G. (2015). A typology of consumer strategies for resisting advertising, and a review of mechanisms for countering them. International Journal of Advertising, 34 (1), 6-16
Friestad, M., & Wright, P. (1994). The persuasion knowledge model: How people cope with persuasion attempts. Journal of Consumer Research,21(1), 1. doi:10.1086/209380 Friestad, M., & Wright, P. (1999). Everyday persuasion knowledge. Psychology and
Marketing,16(2), 185-194. doi:10.1002/(sici)1520-6793(199903)16:2<185::aid-mar7>3.0.co;2-n
Gambetti, R. C. (2010). Ambient communication: How to engage consumers in urban touch-points. California Management Review,52(3), 34-51. doi:10.1525/cmr.2010.52.3.34 Gambetti, R. C., & Schultz, D. E. (2014). Reshaping the boundaries of marketing
communication to bond with consumers. Journal of Marketing Communications,21(1), 1-4. doi:10.1080/13527266.2014.970821
Glenane-Antoniadis, A., Whitwell, G., Bell, S. J., & Menguc, B. (2003). Extending the vision of social marketing through social capital theory: Marketing in the context of intricate exchange and market failure. Marketing Theory,3(3), 323-343.
doi:10.1177/147059310333002
Goldberg, M. E., & Gorn, G. J. (1987). Happy and sad TV programs: how they affect reactions to commercials. Journal of Consumer Research,14(3), 387.
doi:10.1086/209122
Griffin, D., & O'cass, A. (2004). Social Marketing: Who really gets the message? Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing,12(2), 129-147. doi:10.1300/j054v12n02_07 Redcrowmarketing (2015) How many ads do you see in one day? get your advertising
campaigns heard. (2016, May 03). Retrieved March 18, 2017, from http://www.redcrowmarketing.com/2015/09/10/many-ads-see-one-day
Hutter, K (2015). Unusual location and unexpected execution in advertising: A content analysis and test of effectiveness in ambient advertisements. Journal of Marketing Communications, 21(1), 33-47. doi: 10.1080/13527266.2014.970823
Hutter, K., & Hoffmann, S. (2014). Surprise, surprise. ambient media as promotion tool for retailers. Journal of Retailing,90(1), 93-110. doi:10.1016/j.jretai.2013.08.001 Kilgour, M., Sasser, S., & Koslow, S. (2013). Creativity awards: Great
expectations? Creativity Research Journal,25(2), 163-171. doi:10.1080/10400419.2013.783741
Koslow, S. (2015). I love creative advertising. Journal of Advertising Research,55(1), 5-8. doi:10.2501/jar-55-1-005-008
Laran, J., Dalton, A. N., & Andrade, E. B. (2011). The curious case of behavioral backlash: Why brands produce priming effects and slogans produce reverse priming
effects. Journal of Consumer Research,37(6), 999-1014. doi:10.1086/656577 Lang, A. (2000). The limited capacity model of mediated message processing. Journal of
Communication,50(1), 46-70. doi:10.1093/joc/50.1.46
Mohr, L. A., Eroǧlu, D., & Ellen, P. S. (1998). The development and testing of a measure of skepticism toward environmental claims in marketers communications. Journal of Consumer Affairs,32(1), 30-55. doi:10.1111/j.1745-6606.1998.tb00399.x
Murry, J. J., Lastovicka, J. L., & Singh, S. N. (1992). Feeling and liking responses to television programs: An examination of two explanations for media-context effects. Journal of Consumer Research,18(4), 441. doi:10.1086/209272 Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). The elaboration likelihood model of
persuasion. Communication and Persuasion, 1-24. doi:10.1007/978-1-4612-4964-1_1 Pieters, R., Warlop, L., & Wedel, M. (2002). Breaking through the clutter: Benefits of
advertisement originality and familiarity for brand attention and
memory. Management Science,48(6), 765-781. doi:10.1287/mnsc.48.6.765.192 Pillai & Sankara, (1990). Impact of clutter on advertising viewership and recall: An Indian
experiment. Journal of the Market Research Society 32(2), 187–96.
Pillow, B. H. (1991). Children's understanding of biased social cognition. Developmental Psychology,27(4), 539-551. doi:10.1037//0012-1649.27.4.539
Pollay, R. W., & Mittal, B. (1993). Here's the beef: factors, determinants, and segments in consumer criticism of advertising. Journal of Marketing,57(3), 99.
Obermiller, C., Spangenberg, E., & Maclachlan, D. L. (2005). Ad skepticism: The consequences of disbelief. Journal of Advertising,34(3), 7-17.
doi:10.1080/00913367.2005.10639199
Rauwers, F., & Noort, G. V. (2015). The underlying processes of creative media
advertising. Advances in Advertising Research (Vol. VI), 309-323. doi:10.1007/978-3-658-10558-7_24
Rauwers, F., & van Noort, G. (2015). The Persuasive Effects and Underlying Mechanisms of Creative Media Advertising. Manuscript in preparation
Riebe, E. L., & Dawes, J. G. (2006) Recall of radio advertising in low and high advertising clutter formats. International Journal of Advertising 25(1),71–86.
Rosengren, S., Modig, E., & Dahlén, M. (2014). The value of ambient communication from a consumer perspective. Journal of Marketing Communications,21(1), 20-32.
doi:10.1080/13527266.2014.970825
Schiffman, L. G., Kanuk, L. L., & Wisenblit, J. (2010). Consumer behavior. Upper Saddle River: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Shanahan, K. J., & Hopkins, C. D. (2007). Truths, half-truths, and deception: perceived social responsibility and intent to donate for a nonprofit using implicature, truth, and
duplicity in print advertising. Journal of Advertising,36(2), 33-48. doi:10.2753/joa0091-3367360202
Smith, R. E., & Yang, X. (2004). Toward a general theory of creativity in advertising: Examining the role of divergence. Marketing Theory,4(1), 31-58.
doi:10.1177/1470593104044086
Speck, P. S., & Elliott, M. T. (1997). Predictors of advertising avoidance in print and broadcast media. Journal of Advertising,26(3), 61-76.
Webb, P. H., & M. Ray. (1979). Effects of television clutter. Journal of Advertising Research 19(3), 7–12.
Webb, J. D., & L. A. Mohr (1998). A typology of customers’ responses to cause related marketing: From skeptics to socially concerned. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing 17 (2), 226–39.
Appendix A
Image 1: Example non-profit WWF
B Survey
My overall impression of the advertisement that I just saw is... 1 (1) 2 (2) 3 (3) 4 (4) 5 (5) 6 (6) 7 (7) bad (1) good (1) unpleasant (2) pleasant (2) unfavorable (3) favorable (3) dislike (4) like (4) negative (5) positive (5)
My overall impression of this sunscreen brand in the advertisement that I just saw is... 1 (1) 2 (2) 3 (3) 4 (4) 5 (5) 6 (6) 7 (7)
Bad (1) Good (1) Unpleasant (2) Pleasant (2) Unfavorable (3) Favorable (3)
Negative (4) Positive (4) Bad quality (5) Good quality (5) Untrustworthy (6) Trustworthy (6)
1 (1) 2 (2) 3 (3) 4 (4) 5 (5) 6 (6) 7 (7) unlikely (1) likely (1) improbable (2) probable (2) definitely would not
(3)
definitely would (3)
To what extend do you agree to these 3 statements Strongly agree (1) Agree (2) Somewhat agree (3) Neither agree nor disagree (4) Somewhat disagree (5) Disagree (6) Strongly disagree (7) The goal of the advertisement is to sell more sunscreen (1) The goal of the advertisement is to sell me sunscreen (2) The advertisement has a profit goal (3)
The advertisement that I just saw was...
1 (1) 2 (2) 3 (3) 4 (4) 5 (5)
uncreative (1) creative (1) usual (2) unusual (2) unsurprising (3) surprising (3)
expected (4) unexpected (4)
The brand in the advertisement that I just saw was? Profit (1)
Non-profit (2)
Extremely good (1) Somewhat good (2) Neither good nor bad (3) Somewhat bad (4) Extremely bad (5) What is your gender Male (1)
Female (2) Other (3) What is your age
What is your highest level of education that you have finished Less than high school (1)
High school graduate (2) Some college (3) Associate's degree (4) Bachelor degree (5) Master degree (6) Doctorate (7) Other (8)
Do you have any questions or comments?
Thank you for participating in this study. If you have any additional questions or comments please don't hesitate to contact me: rosalinda.meijer@student.uva.nlPlease don't forget to click on the arrow to submit
B Stimulus Material
Traditional media Profit
